PING: Tony Pagano
raven1
Earth and the Sun are.
<crickets>
John Harshman
any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
T Pagano
1. Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
Earth.
2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
Clusters
4. Periodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
5. Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
center of mass of the universe.
BTW where's your pet dog and has he explained why no one can find the
95 percent of the universe (by mass of the so-called cold dark matter)
the atheists claim is driving the universe's expansion. The atheists
believe in unobservable mass and they criticize Christians. Oh
brother. . .
After Carlip vanished Harshman probably plans to bring in a voodoo
witch doctor to conjure up the cold dark matter. Probably just the
way Lorentz conjured up the mathematical fiction to defend against the
pesky Michelson-Morley results.
Better do something quick because the morale of your nimrod
cheerleaders isn't too high.
Regards,
T Pagano
John Harshman
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> raven1 wrote:
>>> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
>>> Earth and the Sun are.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>>
>> As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
>> any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
>> the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>
>
> 1. Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
> Earth.
> 2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
> 3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
> Clusters
> 4. Periodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
> 5. Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
> all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
>
> I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
> center of mass of the universe.
Clearly you don't know what a center of mass is, or why it should
matter. Everyone, everywhere, would see the same phenomena; can you
present evidence that this isn't true? And even if these phenomena
pointed to us being at a unique center, the accuracy isn't enough to say
the center is here rather than in the Andromeda galaxy, much less earth
rather than the sun. Then again, we do know the center of mass of the
solar system rather precisely, and it's inside the sun. How does the
rest of the universe affect that? (Answer: not to any detectable degree.)
> BTW where's your pet dog and has he explained why no one can find the
> 95 percent of the universe (by mass of the so-called cold dark matter)
> the atheists claim is driving the universe's expansion. The atheists
> believe in unobservable mass and they criticize Christians. Oh
> brother. . .
Again, it's important to point out that you are saying "atheist" when
the proper word is "scientist", and to make everything symmetrical, this
time you are saying "Christian" when you mean "creationist nut-job".
And Carlip isn't my pet dog, nor has he disappeared. In fact you seem
never to answer any of his posts. Why?
Boikat
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
>
> >raven1 wrote:
> >> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
> >> Earth and the Sun are.
>
> >> <crickets>
>
> >As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
> >any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
> >the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>
> Earth.
Bullcrap.
http://www.aao.gov.au/press/cosbeaimages/new_wedge.gif
> 2. 嚙磅pherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
Your ignorance is appauling. Using the "Spotted Balloon "analogy,
assume for the moment that you are a piss-ant on the surface of the
balloon. As is the case of a person standing on the surface of the
earth, you can see to the horison, but not all the way around the
sphere. So, as a piss-ant on the balloon, you can see to it's
horizon, and all the dots on the ballon, except for those beyond the
horizon.
> 3. 嚙瘦eocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
> Clusters
Since the center of *observation* is the Eart, or near Earth, in the
case of space telescopes, how else would they be "oriented"?
> 4. 嚙瞑eriodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
Same as above.
> 5. 嚙磅loan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
> all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
See point "2"
>
> I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
> center of mass of the universe.
Only from the perspective of the observer (which happens to be located
on the Earth), however, that has nothing to do with the original
question
>
> BTW where's your pet dog and has he explained why no one can find the
> 95 percent of the universe (by mass of the so-called cold dark matter)
> the atheists claim is driving the universe's expansion. 嚙確he atheists
> believe in unobservable mass and they criticize Christians. 嚙瞌h
> brother. . .
<snip remaining.>
That's funny and hypocritical. I've asked you several times to
support your claim that there are "vast" areas of "out of sequence
sedimentary" rocks that cannot be explained by tectonics. You seem to
have lost your tongue on that.
Can everyone then conclude that you lied when you made that claim?
Boikat
Richard Clayton
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> raven1 wrote:
>>> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
>>> Earth and the Sun are.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>>
>> As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
>> any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
>> the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>
> 1. Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
> Earth.
> 2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
> 3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
> Clusters
> 4. Periodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
> 5. Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
> all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
>
> I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
> center of mass of the universe.
Gosh, no matter which direction I look, the horizon is a circle around
me! I must be at the center of the Earth.
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
Mike Dworetsky
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> raven1 wrote:
>>> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
>>> Earth and the Sun are.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>>
>> As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
>> any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way
>> on the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>
>
> 1. Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
> Earth.
> 2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
> 3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
> Clusters
> 4. Periodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
> 5. Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
> all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
>
> I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
> center of mass of the universe.
Errant nonsense, but I'm curious where you got this list, since you are
incapable of making it up yourself. You fling out a lot of
sciencey-sounding words, but you don't give any explanation or references.
How about a reference for each item above.
You seem to think the monologue would go something like this:
("Oooh, he knows about the quasars. Guess the game's up for all us
atheists. Shit.")
But actually it's
("He's crazy. None of this is real, and none of it has any implications
that Earth is stationary.")
BTW, I would really like to know what you were thinking* when you included
globular clusters. Astronomers have known they were centred on the galaxy's
core, ever since the study by Shapley about 90 years ago, and no one has
found anything different since then. The galactic centre is a long way from
us, about 30,000 light years.
*Possible scenario-->Tony: "Hey, I'll copy this creationist list. I don't
know what these things are, but it will blind them with "science"."
>
> BTW where's your pet dog and has he explained why no one can find the
> 95 percent of the universe (by mass of the so-called cold dark matter)
> the atheists claim is driving the universe's expansion. The atheists
> believe in unobservable mass and they criticize Christians. Oh
> brother. . .
>
> After Carlip vanished Harshman probably plans to bring in a voodoo
> witch doctor to conjure up the cold dark matter. Probably just the
> way Lorentz conjured up the mathematical fiction to defend against the
> pesky Michelson-Morley results.
>
> Better do something quick because the morale of your nimrod
> cheerleaders isn't too high.
>
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mike Dworetsky
>
> 3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries
Whatever the cause of this effect, it isn't due to Earth being immovable at
the centre of the universe. Incidentally, Pagano provides no physical
reason why binary stars should orient themselves with their major axes
pointing at the Earth.
After wondering what Tony was talking about, I finally remembered a very
obscure phenomenon which has been studied for over a hundred years now.
The thing about spectroscopic binaries is probably a reference to a
phenomenon known as the Barr effect, after its discoverer. The original
effect was found in 1908, and remarkably some of the included stars were
cepheid variables misidentified as binaries. Firstly, while the effect
exists, it isn't "strong" in that it is now (after much careful analysis)
simply a statistical excess of orbits with the direction of periastron
between 0 and 180 degrees, so it is only a statistical effect, as plenty of
orbits have other orientations; secondly, the effect is not observed for
visual binaries, only for spectroscopic binaries (detected by radial
velocity variations); thirdly, there is an explanation for the effect in
physical terms, involving gas streaming from one component to the other,
(though this may not be the full explanation for all cases, it probably
reduces the Barr effect to statistical insignificance); fourthly, the effect
is much weaker for systems with well-determined orbits than for poorly
determined orbits. An interesting is summary at:
http://prints.iiap.res.in/bitstream/2248/1423/1/paper-17.pdf
So no-hoper Tony has screwed this up as well, owing to his slavish
repetition of unsupported geocentrist and creationist claims.
Eric Root
>
(snip voodoo witch doctor Tony's failure to answer the original post.)
Michael Young
the posts I've seen of Tony's, and I've only been here two days, these
are my observations (I'm getting to my question):
1) he makes outrageous claims
2) he doesn't back them up
3) when he does, the "evidence" is distorted science or totally untrue
4) he never responds to criticism or addresses any retorts
So my question is...why is this guy here? Does he really believe
everything he says or is he just giving you guys targets to shoot at
for fun?
marks...@yahoo.com
He is converting athiests to God fearing Christians by showing why
science is wrong. At least thats my impression. He doesnt seem to be
doing well at it.
marks...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
>
er, if you make a map of the sky from , say earth, then the earth will
tend to be at the center, unless you deliberately change it. Since we
are on Earth , a map that shows the sky from earth is actually
useful. The SDSS map appears to show concentric spheres around Earth
but that is an artifact of the mapping method used.
Boikat
> I understand I'm new here, but perhaps someone can fill me in...of all
> the posts I've seen of Tony's, and I've only been here two days, these
> are my observations (I'm getting to my question):
>
> 1) he makes outrageous claims
> 2) he doesn't back them up
> 3) when he does, the "evidence" is distorted science or totally untrue
> 4) he never responds to criticism or addresses any retorts
>
> So my question is...why is this guy here?
(Part one) In his imaginary world he is "defeating" mainstream
science.
> Does he really believe
> everything he says or is he just giving you guys targets to shoot at
> for fun?
(part two) Mainly, he's stroking his own ego. He does this by
ignoring the substance of the replies that flatly refute his claims
and ignoring requests that he support his other claims. By ignoring
them, he imagines his claims are unchallenged and he "wins".
Boikat
bpuharic
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>raven1 wrote:
>>> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
>>> Earth and the Sun are.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>>
>>As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
>>any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
>>the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>
>
>1. Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
>Earth.
so is everything. that's what happens when you look out from a central
point. it has nothing to do with being at a 'center'.
tony doesn't know simple geometry
>2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
>3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
>Clusters
the problem you have to confront is how things are moving away from us
if everything orbits us. both ideas can not be true. and yet most of
the stuff in the universe is rushing away from us.
that disproves the earth is at the center of the universe.
>
>I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
>center of mass of the universe.
then why is the earth rushing TOWARDS the 'great attractor'?
>
>After Carlip vanished Harshman probably plans to bring in a voodoo
>witch doctor to conjure up the cold dark matter. Probably just the
>way Lorentz conjured up the mathematical fiction to defend against the
>pesky Michelson-Morley results.
>
>Better do something quick because the morale of your nimrod
>cheerleaders isn't too high.
>
next on tony's agenda; the earth is flat
too bad creationists didn't even know galaxies existed until
astronomers told 'em
Free Lunch
<young...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.origins:
Tony has never engaged in a bannable offense, so he isn't banned. Why he
is here spreading his ignorance and ignoring all attempts to educate him
is completely beyond me, but his anti-science nonsense is a change of
pace from the traditional evangelical/fundamentalist/YEC or ID nonsense.
Tony has been here so long that it seems impossible that he's doing it
merely for the entertainment of playing clay pigeon.
Richard Clayton
If Tony is a Loki (a t.o term for a troll who pretends to be a
creationist and posts increasingly weird and ridiculous anti-science
arguments) then he's our longest-running Loki ever; he's been posting
for almost 15 years.*
Fifteen years ago I would have thought Tony was simply trolling, though
I wouldn't have used that word. Since then, though, I've learned there's
simply no idea so ridiculous that SOMEBODY on the internet won't embrace
it wholeheartedly. I've been wrong every single time I've thought
"Nobody could POSSIBLY be that stupid!" (That's kind of depressing,
actually.)
The jury's still out, but I think Tony is simply a person whose ego is
simply too bloated to countenance NOT being at the center of a universe
created recently, by divine fiat, for the specific and exclusive benefit
of Man. Astronomy, biology, geology, and physics are terrifying
disciplines to him, because they demonstrate we're merely residents of
this world, not its masters, and if there is a Divinity running the
show, He doesn't seem to be taking requests� not even from the great
Tony Pagano. All of this horrible evidence must be explained away or
ignored... which is why, reading between the lines, it's pretty obvious
Tony's an epistemological nihilist: Evidence doesn't matter, and wishful
thinking is just as good as a scientific theory.
Likewise, Tony's ego will not allow him to be wrong about anything,
ever, so he carefully ignores the posts that rebut him, then runs to a
new thread to crow about his glorious victories. And since he's an
epistemological nihilist, all those posts trouncing him don't really
MEAN anything; they can't be used to infer anything about the
ignorancelikeness or dishonestylikeness of any of his positions. But I
suspect he truly believes he's giving all of us a good drubbing, in the
same way breatharians truly believe they can subsist on sunlight and
fresh air� right up to the moment they drop dead from starvation.
* Interestingly enough, Tony's earliest post on record is basically a
comically verbose take on Ray Martinez's frequent assertion "if atheists
agree with you, it proves you're not a True Christian."
http://tinyurl.com/2ezxg33 No wonder they get along so well. (At least
until they get into discussions of the age of the Earth, or the
authority of the Catholic Church; then I'm sure they'll want to burn
each other as heretics.)
Bob Berger
>
>T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
>>>> Earth and the Sun are.
>>>>
>>>> <crickets>
>>>>
>>> As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
>>> any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
>>> the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>>
>>
>> 1. Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
>> Earth.
>> 2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
>> 3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
>> Clusters
>> 4. Periodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
>> 5. Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
>> all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
>>
>> I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
>> center of mass of the universe.
>
>Clearly you don't know what a center of mass is, or why it should
>matter.
I thought everyone knew the Center of Mass is the Catholic Church.
Mike Dworetsky
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
"Richard Clayton" <richZIG.e....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hu0ooe$sah$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> He doesn't seem to be taking requests� not even from the great Tony
> Pagano. All of this horrible evidence must be explained away or ignored...
> which is why, reading between the lines, it's pretty obvious Tony's an
> epistemological nihilist: Evidence doesn't matter, and wishful thinking is
> just as good as a scientific theory.
>
> Likewise, Tony's ego will not allow him to be wrong about anything, ever,
> so he carefully ignores the posts that rebut him, then runs to a new
> thread to crow about his glorious victories. And since he's an
> epistemological nihilist, all those posts trouncing him don't really MEAN
> anything; they can't be used to infer anything about the ignorancelikeness
> or dishonestylikeness of any of his positions. But I suspect he truly
> believes he's giving all of us a good drubbing, in the same way
> breatharians truly believe they can subsist on sunlight and fresh air�
> right up to the moment they drop dead from starvation.
>
> * Interestingly enough, Tony's earliest post on record is basically a
> comically verbose take on Ray Martinez's frequent assertion "if atheists
> agree with you, it proves you're not a True Christian."
> http://tinyurl.com/2ezxg33 No wonder they get along so well. (At least
> until they get into discussions of the age of the Earth, or the authority
> of the Catholic Church; then I'm sure they'll want to burn each other as
> heretics.)
So who will bring the marshmallows?
Ernest Major
<richZIG.e....@gmail.com> writes
>reading between the lines, it's pretty obvious Tony's an
>epistemological nihilist
You don't have to read very far between the lines - he denies the
utility of induction.
--
alias Ernest Major
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<jhar...@pacbell.net>:
As far as I can tell Tony is incapable of actual thought,
making the question moot.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Desertphile
wrote:
> On May 30, 9:41�pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
> >
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >raven1 wrote:
> > >> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
> > >> Earth and the Sun are.
> >
> > >> <crickets>
> >
> > >As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
> > >any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
> > >the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
> > 1. �Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
> > Earth.
Unless one does the observations on Planet X; then one will
discover that quasars are formed in groupings of concentric
circles around Planet X.
> > 2. �Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
Unless one does the observations on Planet X; then one will
discover that the distribution of Galaxies is spherical around
Planet X.
> > 3. �Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
> > Clusters
Unless one does the observations on Planet X; then one will
discover a Planet Xic oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
Clusters.
> > 4. �Periodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
True of Planet X also.
> > 5. �Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
> > all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
True also if one does the observations on Planet X.
> > I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
> > center of mass of the universe.
No, Pagano. You have discovered the amazing fact that where one
makes the cobservations dictates what one will see.
> > BTW where's your pet dog and has he explained why no one can find the
> > 95 percent of the universe (by mass of the so-called cold dark matter)
> > the atheists claim is driving the universe's expansion. �The atheists
> > believe in unobservable mass and they criticize Christians. �Oh
> > brother. . .
"Atheists?" Oh, you mean SCIENTISTS! So, Pagano, you believe only
people who do not believe in the gods can be scientists?
> > After Carlip vanished Harshman probably plans to bring in a voodoo
> > witch doctor to conjure up the cold dark matter. �Probably just the
> > way Lorentz conjured up the mathematical fiction to defend against the
> > pesky Michelson-Morley results. �
> >
> > Better do something quick because the morale of �your nimrod
> > cheerleaders isn't too high. �
> >
> > Regards,
> > T Pagano
> er, if you make a map of the sky from , say earth, then the earth will
> tend to be at the center, unless you deliberately change it. Since we
> are on Earth , a map that shows the sky from earth is actually
> useful. The SDSS map appears to show concentric spheres around Earth
> but that is an artifact of the mapping method used.
Yes, exactly. But Mr Pagano has an occult agenda to further, so
details are not important to him.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
raven1
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
><jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>raven1 wrote:
>>> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
>>> Earth and the Sun are.
>>>
>>> <crickets>
>>>
>>As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
>>any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
>>the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>
>
>1. Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
>Earth.
>2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
>3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
>Clusters
>4. Periodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
>5. Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
>all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
>
>I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
>center of mass of the universe.
I'd say that says nothing about what you think the masses of the Earth
and Sun are.
Tim DeLaney
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
>
Tony, do you agree that the shape of the
earth is that of an oblate spheroid? Would
not gravity tend to make a stationary earth
more nearly spherical?
What could possibly cause the bulge? Science
(Oops, sorry, the atheist conspiracy) can
explain it by the reasonable observation that
the earth rotates on its axis. Simple, direct
and quantitative.
Neither the sun nor the moon (the two bodies
that exert the greatest gravitational influence
on the earth) can explain the earth's shape
under neo-Tychonic theory. The orbital planes
of both sun and moon are both quite different
from the plane of the earth's bulge.
Now don't tell us that the shape of the earth
poses no problem for neo-Tychonic theory (as
you have done wrt parallax). Merely asserting
that it poses no problem doesn't cut it. Tell
us why our "stationary" earth has this shape.
Or obfuscate. Guess which one I'm betting on?
Tim
Stuart
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
>
> >raven1 wrote:
> >> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
> >> Earth and the Sun are.
>
> >> <crickets>
>
> >As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
> >any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
> >the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>
> 1. Quasars are formed in groupings of concentric circles around the
> Earth.
False
> 2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
The Earth isn't even at the center of its own galaxy.
Rest of gibberish snipped.
Stuart
LT
> T Pagano wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
> > <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >> raven1 wrote:
> >>> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
> >>> Earth and the Sun are.
>
> >>> <crickets>
>
> >> As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
> >> any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
> >> the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>
> > Earth.
> > 2. 嚙磅pherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
> > 3. 嚙瘦eocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
> > Clusters
> > 4. 嚙瞑eriodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
> > 5. 嚙磅loan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
> > all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
>
> > I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
> > center of mass of the universe.
>
> Clearly you don't know what a center of mass is, or why it should
> matter. Everyone, everywhere, would see the same phenomena; can you
> present evidence that this isn't true? And even if these phenomena
> pointed to us being at a unique center, the accuracy isn't enough to say
> the center is here rather than in the Andromeda galaxy, much less earth
> rather than the sun. Then again, we do know the center of mass of the
> solar system rather precisely, and it's inside the sun. How does the
> rest of the universe affect that? (Answer: not to any detectable degree.)
>
> > BTW where's your pet dog and has he explained why no one can find the
> > 95 percent of the universe (by mass of the so-called cold dark matter)
> > believe in unobservable mass and they criticize Christians. 嚙瞌h
> > brother. . .
>
> Again, it's important to point out that you are saying "atheist" when
> the proper word is "scientist", and to make everything symmetrical, this
> time you are saying "Christian" when you mean "creationist nut-job".
>
> And Carlip isn't my pet dog, nor has he disappeared. In fact you seem
> never to answer any of his posts. Why?
I wager he won't answer this one, either.
LT
Eric Root
wrote:
> until they get into discussions of the age of the Earth, or the
> authority of the Catholic Church; then I'm sure they'll want to burn
> each other as heretics.)
>
> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> Richard Clayton
> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
Tony is very valuable in teaching us the variety of the human
species. As a "staunch evolutionionist," I am always strongly tempted
to use explanations like, "since Tony exists and , presumably, is a
member of the gene pool, there must exist social environments in which
Tony would be an optimum member." I wonder what those environments
could be. Would they tend to be more horrible than normal?
Eric Root
Greg G.
> > until they get into discussions of the age of the Earth, or the
> > authority of the Catholic Church; then I'm sure they'll want to burn
> > each other as heretics.)
>
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
>
> Tony is very valuable in teaching us the variety of the human
> to use explanations like, "since Tony exists and , presumably, is a
> member of the gene pool, there must exist social environments in which
> could be. �Would they tend to be more horrible than normal?
Willy Wonka Industries?
John Harshman
> On May 31, 1:22 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 20:04:40 -0700, John Harshman
>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>> raven1 wrote:
>>>>> Still waiting for you to reply on what you think the masses of the
>>>>> Earth and the Sun are.
>>>>> <crickets>
>>>> As far as I can tell, Tony thinks "center of mass" is just a word for
>>>> any point you would care to designate, and doesn't depend in any way on
>>>> the actual distributions of any actual masses. So there.
>>> Earth.
>>> 2. Spherical distribution of Galaxies with Earth at the center
>>> 3. Geocentrically oriented spectroscopic Binaries and Globular
>>> Clusters
>>> 4. Periodicity of BL Lacertae and X-Ray red shifts
>>> 5. Sloan Digital Sky Survey shows that the Earth is in the center of
>>> all Galaxies and Quasars mapped in the known universe
>>> I'd say these are pretty good reasons to believe the earth is at the
>>> center of mass of the universe.
>> Clearly you don't know what a center of mass is, or why it should
>> matter. Everyone, everywhere, would see the same phenomena; can you
>> present evidence that this isn't true? And even if these phenomena
>> pointed to us being at a unique center, the accuracy isn't enough to say
>> the center is here rather than in the Andromeda galaxy, much less earth
>> rather than the sun. Then again, we do know the center of mass of the
>> solar system rather precisely, and it's inside the sun. How does the
>> rest of the universe affect that? (Answer: not to any detectable degree.)
>>
>>> BTW where's your pet dog and has he explained why no one can find the
>>> 95 percent of the universe (by mass of the so-called cold dark matter)
>>> believe in unobservable mass and they criticize Christians. Oh
>>> brother. . .
>> Again, it's important to point out that you are saying "atheist" when
>> the proper word is "scientist", and to make everything symmetrical, this
>> time you are saying "Christian" when you mean "creationist nut-job".
>>
>> And Carlip isn't my pet dog, nor has he disappeared. In fact you seem
>> never to answer any of his posts. Why?
>
> I wager he won't answer this one, either.
Brave Sir Tony was not afraid to be killed in nasty ways...
bpuharic
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Brave Sir Tony was not afraid to be killed in nasty ways...
i was reading the other day that, on some chicken farms, roosters are
abused by tossing them live into meat grinders.
tony's arguments are treated in much the same way...
Jack Frieze
wrote:
>
> Gosh, no matter which direction I look, the horizon is a circle around
> me! I must be at the center of the Earth.
> --
> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> Richard Clayton
> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." � Rudyard Kipling
Hey, it is the same for me! That must mean. . . ! We've just been
nibbling around the edges of the truth with the Hershey Collective; we
are all one person.
Actually, since we/I can travel thousands of miles and still be in the
center of the circle of the earth, a better conclusion is that there
is only one location.
OK, you can stop the VR experiment now, we figured it out. Look, any
further results are tainted, just let us/me out. This is no longer
funny, guys.
Jack Frieze
Richard Clayton
> On May 31, 1:20 am, Richard Clayton<richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Gosh, no matter which direction I look, the horizon is a circle around
>> me! I must be at the center of the Earth.
>
> nibbling around the edges of the truth with the Hershey Collective; we
> are all one person.
> Actually, since we/I can travel thousands of miles and still be in the
> center of the circle of the earth, a better conclusion is that there
> is only one location.
> OK, you can stop the VR experiment now, we figured it out. Look, any
> further results are tainted, just let us/me out. This is no longer
> funny, guys.
>
> Jack Frieze
"We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But
how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular
time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere,
tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some
insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my
reaction to such solipsism?"
* Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7. Activity recorded M.Y. 2302.22467.
(TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED)
� From Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
Jack Frieze
wrote:
*nervous laughter* Wait, I have it. SEE HOW THIS PARODY OF PAGANO'S
ARGUMENT LEADS TO A CONCLUSION THAT NO-ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND COULD
ACCEPT?
(Back me up on this, Clayton. If I'm a goner, you're for the chop,
too)
--
Nobody Worth Noticing
Richard Clayton
> On Jun 1, 3:39 pm, Richard Clayton<richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
I would, but in order to read your post I'd have to rely on induction.
And Hume (the greatest living philosopher in the English language!)
declared induction logically invalid.
Steven L.
"Eric Root" <er...@swva.net> wrote in message
news:0e333523-d0f7-4f7f...@u7g2000vbq.googlegroups.com:
> On May 31, 9:39�am, Richard Clayton <richZIG.e.clayZIG...@gmail.com>
> > show, He doesn't seem to be taking requests- not even from the great
> > Tony Pagano. All of this horrible evidence must be explained away or
> > ignored... which is why, reading between the lines, it's pretty obvious
> > Tony's an epistemological nihilist: Evidence doesn't matter, and wishful
> > thinking is just as good as a scientific theory.
> >
> > Likewise, Tony's ego will not allow him to be wrong about anything,
> > ever, so he carefully ignores the posts that rebut him, then runs to a
> > new thread to crow about his glorious victories. And since he's an
> > epistemological nihilist, all those posts trouncing him don't really
> > MEAN anything; they can't be used to infer anything about the
> > ignorancelikeness or dishonestylikeness of any of his positions. But I
> > suspect he truly believes he's giving all of us a good drubbing, in the
> > same way breatharians truly believe they can subsist on sunlight and
> > fresh air- right up to the moment they drop dead from starvation.
> >
> > * Interestingly enough, Tony's earliest post on record is basically a
> > comically verbose take on Ray Martinez's frequent assertion "if atheists
> > agree with you, it proves you're not a True Christian."http://tinyurl.com/2ezxg33No wonder they get along so well. (At least
> > until they get into discussions of the age of the Earth, or the
> > authority of the Catholic Church; then I'm sure they'll want to burn
> > each other as heretics.)
> >
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." - Rudyard Kipling
>
> Tony is very valuable in teaching us the variety of the human
> species. As a "staunch evolutionionist," I am always strongly tempted
> to use explanations like, "since Tony exists and , presumably, is a
> member of the gene pool, there must exist social environments in which
> Tony would be an optimum member." I wonder what those environments
> could be. Would they tend to be more horrible than normal?
Here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
What brings stuff like this into existence isn't necessarily peculiar
cosmological views like Pagano's, but his rejection of induction.
Without the principle of induction, you not only lose empirical science,
you lose the possibility of a fair trial.
-- Steven L.
Perplexed in Peoria
Not always inside. When Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune don't sit on the
opposite side of the sun from Jupiter, the center or mass of the system
is well above the sun's surface.
http://www.applet-magic.com/centermass.htm
The mass of the Sun is only about 1050 times as large as that of Jupiter.
The radius of Jupiter's orbit around the center of mass of the two bodies
is about 484 million miles so the radius of the Sun's counter orbit around
their center of mass would be about 462 thousand miles. This is about
28 thousand miles above the surface of the Sun.
[snip]
John Harshman
Walter Bushell
John Harshman <jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Depends on how you define the Sun's surface doesn't it? We could define
it as where the solar wind merges with the interstellar media.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.